If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote: > > 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines '65-80s. > > More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and > choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in > cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if > they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not. > Same as every other carbureted vehicle. At least some 1975 or 1976 Slant 6 cars with the single barrel Holly stalled so badly that the federal government forced a recall for the problem. The modifications included keeping the EGR closed until a higher temperature and using a different accelerator pump diaphram material, but they didn't help much, unlike a change to the 2-barrel carb did. The V-8s with the Carter 2-barrels didn't stall. Apparently the hesitation was caused by Chrsyler's difficulties meeting EPA regulations, and only aA few years earlier the EPA thought Chrysler would have the most problems meeting emissions standards, GM the least. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
aarcuda69062 wrote: > In article > .com>, > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote: > > > Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine > > inch Ford rear end, > > The pinion stem diameter of a Ford 9 inch is the same as the > smallest (least desirable) Chrysler 8.75. Let's see, you don't > need to press the rear pinion bearing off to change pinion depth > shims. That doesn't lend itself to durability, just negates the > need for a press and a bearing splitter during set up. I'll take > strong over dumbed down any day. The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little. Of course, if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one fell swoop. The only thing better is a Jag XJ setup. Guess what, with a little machine work it takes Ford ring and pinion too! > > <snip airplane stuff> > > > Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in > > a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect. > > Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications. > Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP > sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way > past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot > hanging out of them though. MAP is not a speed density system, MAF is. It's right from a computational standpoint. It is more accurate over the full engine mapp especially with modification. > > > Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent > > system > > Brass reluctor? Yeah, the reluctor, actually it's the feeler gauge that's brass. Sorry. It has the TO case transistor on the little box with the five pin connector with the screw through it. You can usually fix them yourself by changing the power transistor and the diodes and caps out, if you can get it depotted. > > > but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, > > No different than any other manufacturer. > Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD. All that winds up in a cardboard box and we put on a good aftermarket manifold and carb and jet to taste. If I had to drive an '83 LTD in Californicator country I'd put a big propane cylinder in the trunk and convert to LPG. > > > their big > > alternator put out little zap, > > Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure. > Uh-huh. GM alternators are the best. Period. They are reliable and more to the point, can be had in high current versions cheaply. The Chrysler is reliable enough. But it's what, 60 amps? And that's the BIG version. > > > and their current electronics are Nazi > > (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the > > long run > > > Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity > cover over the engine like a C-230? > (isn't that a Buick thing?) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
In article
.com>, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote: > The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium > duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little. A common held belief not based upon fact. > Of course, > if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it > would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to > go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one > fell swoop. Hate to break it to you but the Chrysler 8.75 "pumpkin" is serviced the exact same way, as was a version of Oldsmobile rear axle used in the late 50s early 60s. The Chrysler advantage is that the pinion stem is 3/8"-1/2" bigger in diameter which also gets you bigger bearings. Ford 9 inch rear axles make me laugh the same as Muncie and Borg Warner transmissions make me laugh when I compare them to a Chrysler unit. > The only thing better is a Jag XJ setup. Guess what, with a little > machine work it takes Ford ring and pinion too! > > > > <snip airplane stuff> > > > > > Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in > > > a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect. > > > > Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications. > > Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP > > sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way > > past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot > > hanging out of them though. > > MAP is not a speed density system, MAP -is- speed density. MAF is just that, Mass Air Flow. Density and mass are not the same thing. > MAF is. It's right from a > computational standpoint. It is more accurate over the full engine mapp > especially with modification. That additional accuracy must be needed to make up for other shortcomings. ChryCo meets all requirements without having to resort to such an expensive fragile component, and your accuracy goes to **** as soon as a little fuzz accumulates on the sensor element. Oh, and what a dismal failure GMs hot film MAF sensor was... > > > Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent > > > system > > > > Brass reluctor? > > Yeah, the reluctor, actually it's the feeler gauge that's brass. The feeler gauge is not part of the ignition system. > Sorry. It has the TO case transistor on the little box with the five > pin connector with the screw through it. I'm quite familiar, and the five pin became obsolete over 20 years ago. > You can usually fix them > yourself by changing the power transistor and the diodes and caps out, > if you can get it depotted. That's a lot of work for something that carries a 5 year 50,000 mile warranty, even today. > > > but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, > > > > No different than any other manufacturer. > > Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD. > > All that winds up in a cardboard box and we put on a good aftermarket > manifold and carb and jet to taste. And your point is what,, that [that] can't be done on a Chrysler product? > If I had to drive an '83 LTD in > Californicator country I'd put a big propane cylinder in the trunk and > convert to LPG. What happens when you need the trunk? > > > their big > > > alternator put out little zap, > > > > Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure. > > Uh-huh. > > GM alternators are the best. The 10SI was a good alternator, made lots of money on 'em, the CS version that replaced it is pure garbage with a dismal service history. > Period. They are reliable and more to the > point, can be had in high current versions cheaply. And replacing a voltage regulator means splitting the case, something that not everyone is comfortable with. > The Chrysler is reliable enough. But it's what, 60 amps? And that's > the BIG version. I have a 42 amp version that works just fine. Exactly why do I need all those amps anyway? > > > > > and their current electronics are Nazi > > > (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the > > > long run > > > > > > Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity > > cover over the engine like a C-230? > > (isn't that a Buick thing?) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
aarcuda69062 wrote:
>> especially with modification. > > That additional accuracy must be needed to make up for other > shortcomings. ChryCo meets all requirements without having to > resort to such an expensive fragile component, and your accuracy > goes to **** as soon as a little fuzz accumulates on the sensor > element. Oh, and what a dismal failure GMs hot film MAF sensor > was... > I was an advisor at a Ford dealer for a while and I had a vehicle with the check engine light on, the tech found a flys wing in the MAF. -- http://www.hostmybb.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=rftg B-N-Ps, no B no Ps,no spam, trades,post,chat come join! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article > .com>, > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote: > > >> The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium >>duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little. > > > A common held belief not based upon fact. > > >>Of course, >>if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it >>would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to >>go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one >>fell swoop. > > > Hate to break it to you but the Chrysler 8.75 "pumpkin" is > serviced the exact same way, as was a version of Oldsmobile rear > axle used in the late 50s early 60s. The Chrysler advantage is > that the pinion stem is 3/8"-1/2" bigger in diameter which also > gets you bigger bearings. Ford 9 inch rear axles make me laugh > the same as Muncie and Borg Warner transmissions make me laugh > when I compare them to a Chrysler unit. How about gear selection? I can put any rear end in the car that I race that I choose. It has a 9". I can change gears in my floating rear in less than 30 minutes at the track. I will agree that axles in the Ford aren't the greatest, and aftermarket parts help that, but stock parts are plenty strong for 500+ H.P. how is that weak? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, 51_racing wrote:
> How about gear selection? How about it? 2.76, 2.94, 3.23, 3.55, 3.91, 4.10, 4.56, 5.13 and several others I'm leaving out. Not enough choice for ya? > can change gears in my floating rear in less than 30 minutes at the track. Same can be done with the 8-3/4". Your point is...? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, 51_racing wrote: > >> How about gear selection? > > > How about it? 2.76, 2.94, 3.23, 3.55, 3.91, 4.10, 4.56, 5.13 and several > others I'm leaving out. Not enough choice for ya? > No as a matter of fact, not nearly enough. And not nearly steep enough, how about starting in the mid 5's and go up from there, the most common types used in racing. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote: > >> The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium >> duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little. > > A common held belief not based upon fact. Oh, pshaw. Why, it's based in *at least* as much fact as Bret's hallucinatory brass-reluctor Mopar ignition systems (of which when he's "reminded" the nonexistence, he allows as how it's actually the feeler gauge used to set the reluctor air gap that's brass). And the superiority of the Ford 9" is at least as factual as Bret's singular inability to get Mopar alternators and carburetors to work, despite their being perfectly adequate for everyone else who's used them. Perhaps he's never actually used them, or suffers from a peculiar sort of selective blindness rendering him able to see only the alternators rated at under 60 Amps. And don't let's forget the slant-6 induction and exhaust systems that make Bret wish to vomit (a ringing endorsement, given the fanciful nonsense that passes for engineering knowledge from our friend Mr. Ludwig!). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 24th 05 05:27 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 8th 05 05:28 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | May 24th 05 05:27 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 4 | February 2nd 05 05:22 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | December 18th 04 05:15 AM |